By: BWParent on 9/7/10
The time to negotiate with the city was before making roster decisions that ignored the long standing residency requirements. The quotes from club leadership make it sound as if the club is a victim when in fact the residency requirements were known at the time of roster selection. The only unknown was the cities response to non-compliance. Unfortunately, those that will have to pay for this disregard had no say in the decision to ignore the rules and it is too late to change the composition of the teams because of TSSA rules on player movement.

I would recommend establishing an escrow of $25k that would be applied as a credit to 2011/2012 fees if percents are met next enrollment (May/June 2011). This would give the members of the club an opportunity to influence their leadership or knowingly pay incremental fees for past and future years.

As a long term member of the club, I see no reason that we shouldn't be able to meet residency requirements and compete at the highest levels. We have been doing it for years.

By: drummingfool on 9/7/10
Make BWSC for Brentwood only. The coaches are supposed to train the kids to compete at the highest level. Stop giving them the cream of the crop from outside BW and making it easy on them. We BW parents don't like it when our kids are displaced by kids from White House, Smyrna, Columbia, etc. This is our city, our parks, our club, so it should favor our kids. If you have a problem with it, just buy a home here.

By: WCU4Ever on 9/7/10
PLEASE POST THIS VERSION AS THE OTHER WAS WRONG VERSION_ SPELLING OFF

This issue has really brought into focus the real question: what does BWSC want to be when it grows up. It either wants to be a state dominant, and regional level club, or it wants to be a local provider of competitive soccer to Brentwood residents. It cannot be both in today's environment. There are just not enough players to choose from in Brentwood to field teams that are competitive on a regional, or even state level anymore. Huntsville, Jackson Ms, St Louis, Columbus Oh, Memphis and Knoxville have all merged clubs because of this reality. The best teams that BWSC had before were not comprised of Brentwood majority residents: they had kids from all over the county and middle Tennessee. It was just never an issue on the club level because the rest of the teams had Brentwood majority players and the other teams kept BWSC in compliance. BWSC has never competed at the highest levels with only Brentwood kids. They had individual teams that competed at the highest levels because they drew kids from all over for the individual teams they were on.

Despite comments to the contrary in previous postings, BWSC current situation is more the unintended result of TNFC's problems of 4 years ago when TNFC lost over $100,000 due to the embezzlement of money by its then President and the Board at that time's failure to correctly monitor the club's operations and finances. When the new TNFC Board had to make some tough choices and implement drastic money saving choices, several of the coaches decided to leave the club. BWSC hired those coaches and the TNFC players followed. These players were not majority Brentwood residents. The current percentage problem is not the result of any strategic plan or any other choice by BWSC, other than to hire the coaches who left TNFC and the choice of the players to follow those coaches. It is this influx of talent and players that has created the current situation. But it is this influx which has also created the success that BWSC is now experiencing and the question facing BWSC about what kind of club it wants to be.

If BWSC wants to continue to build upon its current success of having more current state champions and finalists than any other club in the state, then it needs to develop its financial model accordingly. I would think that it is the older age groups that have the teams that are non-compliant, and it is also those teams that are competing on the state and regional level and have the most experienced coaches. It is those players and teams that have made the commitment to be part of the best and train more, travel more and sacrifice more. It should be those teams that carry the cost for "being the best". Regardless, BWSC needs to find the model that will cover the posted and announced fees from the City each year. IF the fees are not set for each year ahead of time by the City so that BWSC can make those informed choices, then the City should not now be able to change them either as that would not be fair.

As a Brentwood resident, I agree that the City should charge a usage fee for ALL organizations who use the fields, YMCA, Blaze, lacrosse, rugby, soccer, baseball, ultimate Frisbee, etc. There is a difference between residents occasionally getting together to have fun in city parks and organized teams using the facilities for practice and games. The fee usage should have a graduated scale based on residence and usage. I am sure the city has statistics and information from similar size cities with similar park maintenance costs and issues to base its fees on to cover maintenance and development of its fields. If it does not have that information, it should. It should apply the same fee structure to ALL organizations equally and then those organizations can budget and make informed decisions accordingly. Hopefully the City's fee structure will take into account the increased tax revenue that BWSC, or any other club, indirectly generates by having teams come to play its teams in "friendlies" and, in BWSC's case, attend the 2 Brentwood tournaments. There should be some discount to the fee structure to account for these "indirect fee" collections.

I have heard that one of the reasons BWSC is perplexed by the doubling of the fees for the 2010-11 season is that BWSC told the City prior to tryouts that the percentages were likely to be off and the City gave the impression, or outright stated, that they would work with BWSC and that BWSC should go through tryouts and select their teams. If this is true, then it seems unfair for the City to implement a doubling of the fee during this 2010-11 season. I think it would be more appropriate to tell BWSC that as a result of non-compliance this year, the fees for 2011-12 will be higher or split the increase between the 2 fiscal years. If that "rumor" is incorrect, then BWSC should have built in the increased fee structure into the current operating budget as the teams were known for the 2010-11 season before the season budget was finalized, or at least it should have been.

Finally, if BWSC is going to continue to build on its current success, it needs to approach the County for usage of the County's fields as clearly the vast majority of the BWSC players are Williamson County residents. If BWSC split its time and field usage among Brentwood city fields and Williamson County fields maybe its total fees would be less. (Does Williamson County have a residency requirement?). I am sure this option will alienate BWSC's neighbors at TNFC who right now are the only competitive soccer club to have access to the Williamson County fields, but maybe that irritation will be a good catalyst for what truly needs to happen: a merging of the two clubs at the older age levels to provide the best environment for all the players who seek to continue to play beyond Williamson County the best opportunity to do so. Ah, one can only dream of such a logical solution to the bigger question: what does BWSC want to be when it grows up?

By: drummingfool on 9/7/10
The question isn't what BWSC wants to be "when it grows up" (whatever that's supposed to mean) but what kind of soccer club does the taxpayers of Brentwood want in it's backyard? As a BW taxpayer, I do not want one single BW child to be displaced by a child from outside BW, simply because of someone's lust to "win at any cost." We can hire coaches and trainers to make them competitive, and if they aren't regional champions, so be it.

By: WCU4Ever on 9/7/10
There is not one mention above that would provide a reader with the notion that BWSC creates teams to satisfy "someone's lust to win at any cost". In fact, i know that is not the case today. Compete yes. Win no. Every BW child has an appropriate place to play soccer whether it be at the very good YMCA program or a part of the equally good Williamson County program. However, playing travel soccer is a separate opportunity that is not meant for or created for all children and players. When I played soccer there were no other opportunities to play but the county sponsored leagues or the church leagues and everyone played. However, even then there was a stratification by player level as to what team each player played on. No competitive soccer club says it is for all players. BWSC is no different. Blaze football stratifies the players by talent and size. Civitan baseball does the same thing by ability. All sports do. IF it is wrong for BWSC to make the same asessments and placements then you must also be against Blaze football, Civitan baseball and every other team or organization that trys to place children in the best environment to succeed and progress. I just dont agree with the notion that watering down the talent levels so all kids can play and so that all teams are average. It is just not true in sports, school or life. Each child should be given the best opportunity to succeed and chase their dream to play at the highest level they can play at. BWSC provides that opportunity for all. It is just as harmful to the less talented player to put him on a team where he and his teamates know he is not able to keep up as it is to hold a child back from improving because of an arbitrary distinction based on geography. I am a BW taspayer also and i think it is jsut as wrong to tell my children that we have to go to a different club to play at a higher competitive level than it is to tell a child you are on a team, or not on a team, merely because your parents bought a house on a certain street in a certain city. BWSC should pay appropriate fees based on usage, just like any other non-city operated sports club. No more, no less.

By: cbosen on 9/7/10
@WCU4Ever --
"BWSC should pay appropriate fees based on usage, just like any other non-city operated sports club. No more, no less."

I agree and I believe that's all the City and others are asking -- those fees, however, are based on residency requirements. BWSC, as a Category II service provider, has lower residency requirements than Category I providers in order to receive priority field reservations (vs. outside providers) and to receive discounted usage fees (vs. outside providers). It's perfectly acceptable for an organization to be selective and seek to be competitive. As far as Civitan and/or Blaze, isn't the reality in regards to Blaze and Civitan that if you want to play and can afford to play, you will be placed on a team suitable for your skill level and given the chance to play? (I'm not sure, but I think that's how those organizations are comprised). That's also why those programs receive directly from the City of Brentwood taxpayer funds in the fiscal budget to support their programs (that's a WHOLE other discussion!!).

Teams such as the Blaze, for example, according to someone with a player in that organization, charge one fee if you are a Brentwood resident, a higher fee if you are a Williamson County resident, and an even higher fee if you are outside the county. My understanding is that BWSC doesn't make such a distinction regarding their dues structure -- although the City obviously does. If the BWSC did that, dividing the added costs to their out-of-city players, wouldn't that be at least one viable solution in the future?

An interesting question is what's of greater value to the BWSC -- the priority field reservation and usage rights they enjoy as a Category II service provider or the lower fees? Because if they want to be considered a totally separate service provider, they will lose that priority scheduling granted to Cat. I and II providers. Under the current system, if any group doesn't meet the established residency requirements they don't receive priority in reserving City facilities. That, it would seem, would be of greatest value to the Club compared to paying the additional $20,000 annually for field use (based on the rental fee that any non-city operated sports club would pay).

If BWSC indeed serves around 800 players at a dues cost in the ballpark of $100 per month (given the $60-$150 month range for TNFC) that's around $80,000 per month and $800,000 annually in revenue to fund the program, coaches' salaries, insurance, etc. -- the proposed cost for field use in that light seems reasonable and fair, not oppressive and exclusionary.